Debates of March 9th, 2021

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tough question to answer, particularly if we take the government at its word.

One worry is that there may be a sincerity issue here. I raised that issue on the point about cheese. The Liberals say it is going to be a leverage point to get the U.K. back at the table, yet they are not going to make any concessions on that. They are swearing up and down that they do not like investor-state dispute settlement clauses and that they are glad to see them gone, yet they somehow keep popping up in Canada's agreements. Somebody has to be advocating for these things, so who is it?

Whose interests is the government really representing and fighting for at the international bargaining table? If we look at the evidence, one has to draw the conclusion that Liberal and Conservative governments for the last 30 years have been there to represent the interests of multinational corporations far more than the interests of everyday working Canadians.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always love hearing my hon. colleague speak. He does it so well, and he is so concise about all the different issues. I really appreciate that.

One of the things that he so brilliantly talked about was, again, the corporate agenda, and the defence of Liberal after Conservative after Liberal after Conservative governments negotiating trade agreements that are not good for workers, women, dairy farmers, or so many people.

We obviously know that these past governments defend their friends against reform on taxables, wealth taxes, and ISDS and ICS provisions within trade agreements.

Can the member talk about what the NDP vision is for trade and what we would do differently? Even though past governments have all these condescending beliefs that we do not know what trade is, could he talk about some of the ideals we want to bring into a better trade agreement?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that topic is a speech in and of itself, but, first and foremost, it is about democracy and the protection of democracy. One of the things that is important to name and combat is this pretense that somehow free markets go hand in hand with democracy. It is something that Liberals and Conservatives in this House do and have been doing for a long time. It has been done on the world stage by neo-conservatives and neo-liberals in other countries as well.

Often what ends up happening in free-market scenarios is that we get a serious accumulation of private power that subverts the power of democratically elected governments to make decisions in the public interest. Where there are some really free-market situations in the world outside of Canada, places where there is less regulation, we do not see a lot of freedom. Instead, we see a lot of exploitation.

If markets are going to work, they have to be regulated in an appropriate sense. Far too often, what these kinds of trade agreements have done is deregulate, and try to consolidate that deregulation by keeping democratically elected governments from imposing any kind of future regulation. Sometimes it gets in the way of regulating new types of things, and we are seeing that with the Internet. There are some pretty draconian provisions in CUSMA—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We can have time for one more question.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really well versed in these trade issues. I agree with him on so many points, in particular the need for a sunset clause.

I looked at a lot of the transcripts, but I was there for one of the witnesses from the manufacturing sector who said that Canada's manufacturing base has been hollowed out. We are not getting the exports into the EU, but we are exporting a lot of raw resources. That is one of the things we did not like about CETA.

What are some of the things that the hon. member does not like about the CETA that he does not want to see carry on with this agreement?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say quickly that one would be ISDS, which we have talked a fair bit about so far.

There were also a number of intellectual property provisions in CETA that are putting upward pressure on the cost of drugs, when Canadians already pay among the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world, so it does not make sense to be pursuing that. There is more to say about the WTO and TRIPS, vaccines and all that, but that is certainly part of it.

There are also some of the restrictions on the ability of local governments to make sure that the money they are investing actually goes to companies in their communities, so that that money stays and is part and parcel of building up local communities. America is doing that, despite our trade relationship. We are upset about that. We want access for our Canadian companies, but we are giving that away without reciprocity from our trading partners, and it does not make sense.

Canadian companies are not making tonnes of money on infrastructure projects in Europe, but European giants are here. In some cases they are sending their work forces here to take the work of Canadian trades people, for example, who could be doing that work. We need to consider these things when we are signing the agreement.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House tonight to talk about the benefits of Bill C-18, an act to implement the Agreement on Trade Continuity between Canada and the U.K.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is probably the first time I have ever split with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and I daresay it will likely be the last time. I am here in two capacities: as the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, but also as a chair of the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association. I am interested in all matters pertaining to Canada and the U.K.

All companies stand to benefit from the predictability and stability that this agreement would provide. The U.K. is one of Canada's most important trading partners. The U.K. is Canada's largest market in Europe. It is a key source of foreign direct investment and of science and technology partnerships. Two-way partnerships between Canada and the U.K. amounted to $29 billion in 2019, making it Canada's fifth-largest trading partner after the U.S., China, Mexico and Japan.

The trade continuity agreement before the House today would ensure that Canada could sustain and build upon those relationships by preserving the main benefits of CETA, the trade agreement that Canada had entered in place with the European Union in 2017, the benefits of which are just rolling out.

Replication of the CETA benefits would mean that 98% of products would continue to enter the U.K. duty-free. These include key exports from Quebec and Ontario such as manufactured goods, metals and mineral products. As of January 1, 2024, we are hoping that will increase to 99% of goods receiving duty-free treatment. The Canada-U.K. TCA would also preserve preferential access, established under CETA, for agriculture and agri-foods to the U.K. market, further strengthening the bilateral Canada-U.K. trade relationship. At the same time, this agreement would fully protect the dairy, poultry and egg sectors and would provide no new incremental market access for cheese or any other supply-managed products.

The U.K. is Canada's second-largest services trade partner, behind only the United States, with services exports totalling nearly $7.1 billion last year. Under the Canada-U.K. TCA, just as in CETA, service suppliers would have preferential access to, and greater transparency in, the U.K. services market, which would result in better and more secure and predictable market access for things such as environmental services.

In terms of investment, the U.K. is Canada's fourth-largest foreign direct investor, valued at $62.3 billion in 2017. Canadians are also key investors in the U.K., to the tune of $107 billion, making the U.K. Canada's second-largest direct investment destination. As in CETA, the Canada-U.K. TCA before us today would guarantee access to investors to and from Canada with greater certainty, transparency and protection for their investments, while preserving the rights of those governments to legislate and regulate in the public interest. Just as in CETA, the Canada-U.K. TCA would create more favourable conditions for exporters from Canada and Quebec through important commitments to address non-tariff barriers and establish mechanisms under which Canada and the U.K. could co-operate to address and seek to resolve non-tariff barriers as they may.

While I believe that the House will support this bill, but not necessarily unanimously, I wanted to bring to attention one element of the negotiations that could be either a unifying point or a sticking point.

Most Canadians will not knowingly purchase goods produced by slaves. Britain has been a world leader when it comes to legislative response to supply chain slavery. In the U.K., all major companies are expected to publish a statement on their websites saying they have examined their various supply chains and are satisfied that no element of slavery exists anywhere in their supply chains. This has proved to be a popular initiative with both the public and legislators. It is likely to undergo some revisions shortly to strengthen the resolve and impose more significant consequences. Inevitably, this will be a point of some negotiation, maybe not in this agreement, but in subsequent negotiations. Britain will likely ask for a commitment to parallel legislation so the U.K. is not put at any trading disadvantage. It would be preferable, therefore, that Canada have similar legislation so there is no discrepancy between the two countries.

Currently languishing in the Senate is Bill S-216, formerly my bill, Bill C-423. It is stronger than the current British legislation and would be a complete answer for any issue raised by the U.K. I have had some very positive conversations with the very able and distinguished British High Commissioner, Susan le Jeune d'Allegeershecque. Regrettably, she is leaving this year. She has represented her country brilliantly these last three years. She expressed great interest in Bill S-216 and was quite willing to support the bill in whatever way possible.

Canada imports more than $34 billion worth of goods annually that are tainted by slavery. This includes everything from garments to shrimp, tomatoes and possibly even some high-tech items. It is a competitive disadvantage if one country is governed by strict legislation and another is not. Just as Canadian companies and workers cannot compete with slave labour, also one country cannot disadvantage itself in a trade agreement by allowing the scourge of slavery in the other. I would therefore urge the Government of Canada to adopt this legislation sooner rather than later so that any trade irritant can be reduced and Canada and Britain can form a common trade barrier to slave labour.

The agreement also carries forward from CETA trade facilitation measures designed to reduce red tape at the border, including some of the costs prohibiting companies from doing business.

Diversifying trade has the potential to increase Canadian wealth. SMEs are looking to us to provide market opportunities for their exports. By ensuring there are accessible opportunities abroad, and by maintaining attractive conditions within these markets for SMEs, we are supporting their prosperity and the creation of new jobs in Canada. The Canada-U.K. TCA furthers the same.

As we look to turn the corner from COVID-19, and Lord knows we cannot turn that corner quickly enough, it is even more important that we continue to provide Canadian businesses with as many options and opportunities as possible. The Canada-U.K. TCA maintains crucial ties and preferential trade terms with one of Canada's key trading partners and ensures Canadian businesses do not face yet another disruption at this time. Indeed, if this agreement were not in place this would be yet another setback that businesses could ill afford.

Successful trade provides good employment opportunities. With one in six Canadian jobs linked directly to exports, we remain committed to growing trade and providing opportunities for all Canadian SMEs. That is why I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-18. Their support will help SMEs continue to succeed in the U.K. market.

I look forward to questions from colleagues.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his enlightening speech on Bill C-18, the Canada-U.K. trade agreement. Could he comment on the inherent advantages of Canada entering into a trade agreement with a country with whom we share common law, common parliamentary tradition and common contract-negotiating strategies?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. He is a very able and helpful member of the public safety committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to work with him.

My view is that this should be the easiest trade agreement in the world to negotiate. We share a common language, a common set of laws, a common heritage, a common understanding of the world and we are both part of the Five Eyes, so this is a natural for us. This should be a relatively easy sign-off for our trade officials. I would hope they delve into some of the more problematic issues regarding social issues. If they did, I think it could end up being a model trade agreement for the rest of the world.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the transparency of the negotiations.

He has extolled the virtues of the agreement and free trade, but he surely heard the same comments I did from people who had to work in committee without being able to see the text of the agreement. I would think someone in the government would at the very least feel somewhat uncomfortable, if not embarrassed, working on a bill without seeing the agreement. What does he think about that?

I would also like to hear his thoughts on the government's negligence. It is March, but the agreement was supposed to come into force as of January.

Lastly, I would like to know whether he personally thinks that we should improve the mechanism for consulting and involving elected members in all stages of the negotiation of trade agreements. Why not also ask the provinces and Quebec for feedback on matters involving selling goods on the international market?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what precipitated this agreement was the Brexit deal, which only took effect in January. To be talking about a continuing trade agreement in March and actually moving legislation forward is lightning speed in trade terminology. As for the contents of the text, the hon. member simply needs to read the CETA and he will have 99.9% of the text because this is, in fact, a continuing agreement.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech but also for his important work with the parliamentary association for Canada-U.K. He talked about irritants with this trade deal. He heard earlier from my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith about the 136,000 recipients of the U.K. state pension who live here in Canada, many of them in my riding. Their pensions' annual indexes have been frozen since they arrived, unlike those of U.K. pensioners living in countries such as the U.S., Germany, Italy and Barbados.

Pensions are deferred wages. This is theft as far as I am concerned, and it is a significant irritant. Many of these folks are veterans who served Britain. They have been school teachers, nurses and doctors. I am wondering if the member agrees that this should be discussed when we are talking about trade deals, and it certainly is his important role in leading our group. Again, I want to thank him for his service.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because it is an important issue and it is an irritant. I would not describe it as a trade irritant, but it certainly is an irritant. There are literally tens of thousands of people who should be entitled to a full pension as opposed to the frozen pensions that they receive.

I encourage the hon. member to be active in the Canada-U.K. parliamentary group because this is something that is regularly raised with our British colleagues. At this point, it cannot be said that our British colleagues or the British government are prepared to engage, and it is pretty hard to do any kind of negotiations or make any kind of progress without a dance partner. We do not have a dance partner, but I agree entirely with the hon. member's observation that this is grossly unfair to British pensioners.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join tonight's debate. I understand that my friend from Scarborough, in splitting his time with me, anticipated that it would be the last time ever that he would do that. If he does eventually follow his heart into the Conservative caucus, I would be happy to split my time with him many times in the future. That is saying something, given how little I like sharing the limited time I have in this place.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a point of order all by itself.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my support for virtual heckling is well known because it allows these kinds of substantive exchanges.

I also want to recognize the excellent work of our shadow minister from Kelowna on the bill. I had the opportunity of door knocking with her a little during her campaign and was amazed by the three and four-storey driveway we had to walk up and down in certain parts of Kelowna. That is quite a feat to get here. She has had to tread much greater heights than many of us in the flatter parts of the country, and she is doing great work leading our response on the trade file.

We see the government's approach to trade unfortunately characterized by delay and challenged by its inability to manage and prioritize its legislative calendar. We have been pushing in the House, specifically around a timeline coming up at the end of March where it was critical for the government to move things forward. We are having this debate tonight because it was the leadership of our Conservative caucus pushing forward on the need to prioritize this legislation in light of that timeline.

The government is very clearly trying to position itself for a spring election that it seems to want, but nobody else in the country seems to want. Therefore, it is calling these different bills for short periods of time, at a time, without any sort of focus on specific legislative items, especially ones that clearly are a priority.

In the interests of addressing a real need for Canadians, the Conservatives proposed that we have this debate tonight, at a time when we do not normally have debates, to try to move these things forward. Unlike the Liberals, frankly, whose approach to the legislative calendar seems entirely informed by politics, the Conservatives were thinking about the public interest in the process of really the urgency of moving things forward before the end of March.

As one British politician observed, “even the turkeys won't be able to prevent Christmas.” The timeline was coming and that is why, thanks to the leadership of our shadow minister as well as our House leadership team, we are moving this legislation forward. It follows naturally from our party's deep commitment to the importance of our ties with the U.K., of our ties with other CANZUK partners and recognizing the importance of Canada's position as a global trading nation.

Our leader has from the beginning championed the benefits of strengthening our ties with like-minded CANZUK countries, our relationship with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, four out of five of our Five Eyes partners we collaborate with on security. We have expanded our trading relationships through the TPP, for example, which was negotiated under the Conservatives and gave us trading access with Pacific Rim nations.

There is more work we can do to further expand and strengthen our trade ties. I am very proud of the record of our previous—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We seem to have lost the connection. I will pause momentarily to see if we can regain that connection. Following that, we will decide on the next steps.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is back online. We were at the five minute and 20 second mark, so he can pick it up from where he left off.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am on an irregular device, unfortunately. I am using my phone because my computer crashed. As long as members can hear me and the interpretation is functioning, then I will proceed.

I was speaking to the importance of the trade ties that had been pursued by the previous Conservative government. We dramatically expanded those trade ties. It will be continually important for us to make the case for a robust international trade system even in light of the new challenges that we face.

One of the major challenges we face in the world today is how to respond to human rights abuses linked to unfair trade practices in certain countries, the use of slave labour and how we respond to that in certain countries in a way that is consistent with our values and does not allow our workers to be put in a vulnerable position in addition to that. That is why we should be focused on free trade with like-minded free nations like the U.K., with whom we know there are shared standards in terms of labour commitments, human rights commitments, environmental commitments and so on, that our trade is mutually beneficial, reflective of shared values and that we will not be undercut or undermined through human rights abuses or abuses of intellectual property.

One of the frustrations I have with the government with respect to its lack of focus is that it has not seen or prioritized these opportunities associated with free trade with free nations. In fact, the Prime Minister seemed reluctant about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement initially when he came to office. In fact, he missed key meetings. At the same time, he was talking about wanting to have free trade with the People's Republic of China, with all the problems associated with that. Frankly speaking, we saw just how far down the government's list were the obvious advantages of the Canada-U.K. free trade opportunity. This is really the missed opportunity by the government failing to prioritize this issue. It has taken constant pressure on the government, pushing it to recognize these benefits and to prioritize this issue, to get us even to this point.

I would encourage the government, seeing the opportunities that exist, to look for ways to go further and expand trade co-operation with like-minded nations. There are many other opportunities among our Commonwealth partners throughout the world where we can look to expand trade ties in a way that is beneficial to Canada and Canadians as well as other countries.

I suggest that Canada should do more to look at the opportunities for economic partnerships with countries in Africa. Africa is a continent where dramatic economic growth has taken place in recent years. There is major demographic growth. Too many people do not yet perceive Africa as a continent of economic opportunity and a mutually beneficial partnership. There are many countries with whom we share history and languages and can collaborate with on the next step in our trading infrastructure. As we do that, we should have a focus on building a trade system that reflects our values and a commitment to the rule of law. When we see the Government of China expanding neo-colonial projects in Africa, it underlines the importance of us being engaged there, along with our partners, looking for ways to expand our trade ties and really recognizing the economic potential that flows from those partnerships.

To summarize, the Conservatives are supportive of this trade agreement moving forward with Canada and the U.K. It is frustrating to see the government behind on putting these things forward and not prioritizing important legislation like this. However, the Conservatives have always been prepared to lead, whether it is from government or from opposition, on issues of trade. We were pleased to put forward the motion to have this debate tonight to move this legislation forward. It reflects our desire and our commitment to work constructively in this Parliament when there are areas of legislation and priority that overlap between different parties. We are keen to seize those opportunities in the public interest, obviously not agreeing with all aspects of the government's legislation but seeking to lead and push forward in priority areas like this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for adjusting on the fly so quickly. I think we only lost about a minute, because of his quick reaction and adjustment to get back to debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most difficult times I spent was on the door step of a women who was a senior. She was unable to afford her medicine. She was making a decision on whether to buy food or fill her prescription. No one should have to deal with this in Canada. We know that over 30% of single women over 65 are living in poverty.

Is my colleague concerned that this agreement, like CETA before, might put upward pressure on the price of pharmaceutical drugs for Canadians? Is he concerned about that? What can he propose to ensure that this woman and others do not have to make those difficult decisions?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to ensure that people are not in the vulnerable position that the member described. There are different kinds of steps that can be taken to address the situation of somebody who is struggling to pay for for his or her prescription drug needs. I know the NDP has some proposals along those lines. We have put forward some proposals that try to work collaboratively across jurisdictions, identify where those gaps are and work to fill those gaps. That is a large and important debate and one we are prepared to have.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have talked in the past about sanctions, particularly against China, Magnitsky sanctions, trade sanctions and things such as that. I put forward in my speech an opportunity to join with Great Britain with respect to supply chain slavery legislation. I would be interested in my hon. colleague's thoughts on the utility of supply chains slavery legislation, particularly in the context of a trade agreement with Great Britain which already has similar legislation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is seen as a laggard when it comes to addressing supply chain slavery. We need to do so much more on that front. I am very supportive of a legislative proposal that is in the other place that would start moving us in a stronger way toward achieving those objectives. I do not think, in particular, that the measures the government has proposed with respect to East Turkestan are at all adequate, but steps need to be taken for countries throughout the world.

I will point out that the benefit of collaboration with other countries, the U.K. and the U.S., in response to supply chain slavery can be assistance in monitoring, in reporting and in enforcement. These issues can be difficult to track with respect to identifying the precise risk of slave labour being part of the production of a product in a particular case. If we did a better job of working with our partners, we could find this data and have more effective enforcement as we seek to protect vulnerable people around the world.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not echo my colleague's invitation to the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to cross over and come to the bright side. I do appreciate his welcoming comments to me when I joined the House just over a year ago.

My hon. colleague mentioned trade with Africa. Could he expand on some of the benefits and dual purposes of an expansion in that area? I know that all three of us share a heart for others around the world, so I wonder if he could expand on that, as it is similar to our long-standing relationship with Great Britain.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague did extensive work on international development with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank prior to coming to the House, and I think he would understand very well that our relationship with developing countries should include both development assistance and trade, recognizing the economic opportunities that come from those kinds of partnerships.

I spoke with an ambassador recently who made the point to me that developing countries need investment. They need trade and development assistance as well, and it is private sector growth through trade that can help build long-term economic growth for those countries as well as for Canada. We need to start trying to do both in the case of developing countries, whether it is in Africa or elsewhere. Certainly, there is explosive economic growth happening in parts of Africa, and there are some real opportunities for Canada and for mutually beneficial partnerships.